ED 102 237

AUTHORTITLE

INSTITUTIONSPONS AGENCY

PUB DATENOTE

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

DOCUMENT RESUME

UD 014 754

Johnson, Daniel M.; And OthersBlack Migration to the South: Primary and ReturnMigrants.Sangamon State Univ., Springfield, 111.Missouri Univ., Columbia. Agricultural ExperimentStation.; Public Health Service (DREW), Washington,D.C.7441p.; Article from a larger project, "Migration ofNegroes to the South"

MF-$0.76 HC-$1.95 PLUS POSTAGEAge Differences; *Census Figures; *Demography;Educational Background; Income; Marital Status;Migrants; *Migration Patterns; National Surveys;*Negroes; Occupational Surveys; Rural Areas; RuralResettlement; Sex Differences; *Southern States

ABSTRACTMigration is generally conceptualized in terms of

"streams" and "counterstreams." A stream is a group of migrantshaving a common origin and destination in a given migration period.The movement in the opposite direction is called its counterstream.The latter is usually the smaller of the two. A counterstream can bedivided into two components: first time movers to an area (PrimaryMigrants) and return movers (Return Migrants). The purpose of thispaper is to examine the feasibility of the differentiating betweenprimary and return migrants within the Black countersteam, that is,Black migration to the South. A counterstream migration of Blackpeople to the South has existed for many decades. The Census dataindicates this counterstream has been steadily increasing from thefirst data available in 1935-1940 through the 1973 data from theCurrent Population Survey. As part of a larger study of Blackmigration to the South, the data for this analysis were derived fromthe Public Use Tapes of the 1970 Census of Population and Housing.Given the nature of selectivity in migration, certainsocio-demographic and socioeconomic factors have been selected foranalysis. The variables presented for analysis correspond to thosevariables showing themselves as useful measures of distinctionsbetween migrant groups: age-sex relationships, marital status,education, income, and occupation. (Author/JM)

ri,rim%

c'J

c'J

tz:1r IU.)

*

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

BLACK MIGRATION TO THE SOUTH:

Primary and Return Migrants

by

Daniel M. Johnson, Ph.D.

Gary J. Stangler

Rex R. Campbell, Ph.D.

1This article is from a larger project, "Migration of Ne-groes to the South;' supported jointly by the Department ofHealth, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service (ProjectNumber 2-R01-HD05852-03), and the Missouri Agricultural Experi-ment Station.

Dr. Johnson is an Associate Professor of Sociology at SangamonState University in Springfield, Illinois.

Gary Stangler is a Research Specialist at the University ofMissouri - Columbia.

Dr. Campbell is a Professor of Rural Sociology at the Universityof Missouri-Columbia.

YO

U S OEPANTNAINI Of HI Al TMEDUCATION& 0.1.1.1ANtNATIONAL IN1111UIL 01

E UUCP t ION1.401 DP, V. 8. Of IIL. 1 ..1 1 .1 . E. .Vhf 4. .{.,114MINI. Pf IPO A } tut N 'el f Al+ . 1,f I111

-2-

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

BLACK MIGRATION TO THE SOUTH:Primary and Return Migrants

Migration is generally conceptualized in terms of "streams"

and "counterstreams." Goldscheider loosely defines these con-

structs as "a group of migrants having a common origin and destina-

tion in a given migration period... The movement in the opposite

direction to a stream is called its counterstream" (Goldscheider,

1971:52-54). The distinction drawn between the two streams has

generally been that the counterstream is the smaller of the two

streams. Although many demographers, notably Lee (1969), have

stressed the importance of counterstreams in understanding the

total migration picture, little research has been done on the

subject.

Goldscheider (1971), among others, has set forth a theoretical

framework of migration, which includes the study of counterstream

migration as necessary and fundamental to an understanding of

the determinants of migration, as well as the migration process

itself. He divides the counterstream into two components: first

time movers to an area (Primary Migrants) and return movers (Re-

turn Migrants).2 Although there have been several studies dealing

with return migration to a particular area (Alvarez, 1967; Tadros,

1968; Johnson, 1971), there has been little research done on the

distinctions between the two subgroups of a counterstream migra-

tion.

Often a counterstream is composed solely, or to a 7ery large

extent, of return migrants. For example, Goldscheider (1971)

notes that counterstream migration from the United States to

ILO

.3.

BMT COPY AVAILABLE

Italy and Puerto Rico have been composed largely of return

migrants. But the study of internal migration with respect to

counterstreams yields no pertinent data on the distinctions be-

tween primary and return movers. To this end, the purpose of

this paper will be to examine the feasibility of the differentia-

ting between primary and return migranta within the Black counter-

stream, that is, Black migration to the South.

The dominant Black migration stream in America since 1910

has been from the South to the North. The "Great Migration" of

1916-1918 brought more than a half million persons from small

towns and farms in the South to the metropolitan areas of the

North. The stream continued through the decades of the twenties

and thirties, despite the De-w.ession. According to Census data,

more than 119,000 Blacks moved to the North in the period of

1935-1940 (r.Cable I). The counterstream during the same period

numbered 32,781, or slightly more than one-fourth of the dominant

stream.

The ensuing decades witnessed a continuous movement to the

North. Between 1955 and 1960, more than 300,000 persons left

the South. The numbers declined slightly in the next decade.

In the period 1955-1960, while 300,000 persons moved from the

South, the counterstream movement to the South had grown from

small beginnings to number almost one-third the dominant stream

in that period. Nearly 100,000 Blacks moved to the South during

that period.

In the decade of the sixties, a little over 284,000 Blacks

left the South, while about 126,000 persons moved to the South.

Even with the increase of the North-to-South stream, the relative

-4-BEST COPY AVAILABLE

size of the counterstream experienced substantial growth. For

the 1965-1970 period, the counterstream was nearly half the size

of the dominant stream.

Recent trends in Southern economic expansion, the civil rights

movements of the sixties, and the resulting decrease in discrimina-

tion in the labor market, led students of migration to expect a

steady but gradual growth in the size of the countnrs.tream. What

was not expected so early in the decade was the dramatic reversal

in the historically dominant northward stream. However, data from

the 1973 Current Population Survey (CPS) (U.S. Department of Com-

merce, Social and Economic Statistics Administration, 1974) revealed

a tremendous upsurge in the volume of the counterstream. Between

1970 and 1973, 117,000 Blacks left the South, while nearly 200,000

left the North for southern destinations (Table II). Considering

all non-South regions, the CPS shows that 166,000 persons left

the South while 247,000 persons moved from the West and North to

the South. Since the counterstream is now substantially more

than one-and-a-half times as large as the stream, the question

arises as to when a counterstream is no longer a counterstream.

Assuming that what the CPS shows is not a temporary phenomena,

what we are witnessing is not only a significant reversal of

historical trends, but a veritable demographic revolution of

sorts. To say that the short-run, as well as the loag-run, im-

plications of this reversal, for the South especially, are major,

is an understatement.

The purpose of this paper, however, as stated above, is not

to examine the implications of this phenomenon, but to focus on

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

certain characteristics of the counterstream migrants themselves.

While they are generally lumped together under the general heading

of "countorstream migrants" it is argued below that primary and

return migration are selective of different populations.

As part of a larger study of Black migration to the South, the

data for this analysis were derived from the Public Use Sample Tapes

of the 1970 Census of Population and Housing. 3 Given the nature of

selectivity in migration (Thomas, 1938; Shryock, 1964); Taeuber and

Taeuber, 1965), certain socio-demographic and socio-economic factors

have been selected for analysis. The variables presented for analysis

correspond to those variables showing themselves as useful measures

of distinctions between migrant groups: age -sec relationships,

marital status, education, income, and occupation.

ORIGINS AND DESTINATIONS

The origins and destinations of return and primary migrants

by states differ only in minor respects. Although return migrants,

according to P.U.S., constitute two-thirds of the total counter-

stream, the states of destination in the South for both groups

center principally in Texas, Florida, and the Carolinas. Although

it is a point of debate whether Maryland and Washington, D.C. are

truly "southern," these two areas have also received significant

numbers of counterstream migrants, especially primary migrants.

For both groups it may be said that there is little attraction in

the "Deep South" states of Alabama, Mississippi, and Arkansas,

although migrants to these states are more frequently return

migrants (Table III).

More than two-thirds of the Black population of the South

G

-6-BEST COPY AVAILABLE

presently live in urban areas (Table IV). This represents the

current stage in the on-going urbanization of not only the Black

population but the total population in the South as in all regions.

Table IVa indicates the rural-urban distribution of Blacks in the

United States, the South, the North, and the West. The changing

residential patterns for Blacks in the South as well as the rest

of the nation are primarily reflections of changes in employment

patterns and advances in agricultural technology. Yet it may be

noted that major differences in residential patterns still exist

between the South and non - southern regions. Blacks living in the

North and West have been primarily urbanites since prior to the

turn of the century. Yet it was not until the early 1950's that

the Black urban population of the South exceeded the rural (Farley,

1970:50).

This process of urbanization has received some impetus from

the Black counterstream migration to the South (Table IV).. Whereas

67.3% of the total Black population of the South live in urban

areas, 77.5% of Blacks moving to the South come to reside in such

areas, while the remaining 21.5% of the migrants move to rural

areas. However, when the counterstream is viewed in terms of

primary migrants and return migrants, it is found that the greatest

impetus to urbanization comes from the first-time migrants. Eighty-

six per cent of the primary migrants come to reside in urban areas

while only 74.6% of the returnees select such destinations. Viewed

from the other direction, more than 25% of the returnees moved to

rural destinations while only 13.7% of the primary migrants selected

such areas.

The majority (73.5%) of the southern Black population residing

0'4

-7.BEST COPY AVAILABLE

in metropolitan areas (SMSA's) live in the central city (Table

IV). However, the majority of the migrants to the regionboth

primary and return--tend to avoid the central cities as places

of residence in favor of those areas beyond the city limits but

within the metropolitan area. Little distinction is found between

the primary and return migrants with respect to their choice of

place of residence within the metropolitan areas. For example,

45.3% of the primary migrants chose the central city compared to

48.9% of the returnees. By controlling for the metropolitan

character of the destinations, it was also observed that the states

of South Carolina and Virginia were somewhat more attractive to

those migrar s choosing nonmetropolitan destinations than the

other southern states.

The dominant stream of Black migrants to the North exhibit

some difference in the character of their metropolitan destinations.

For example, migrants leaving the South for destinations In New

York, Illinois, Ohio, California, and Michigan chose the central

city in 83% of the cases compared to less than 50% of the counter-

stream migrants as noted above. These differences in the character

of destinations for the dominant and counterstream migration flows

can be attributed in part to the location of low and moderate-cost

housing, differences in the social and economic characteristics

of the migrants, and variations in the historical patterns of the

residential segregation in northern and southern cities.

AGE AND SEX

Migration selectivity according to age, and the age-sex rela-

tionship, have been the most consistent selective features of

-8- BEST COPY AVAILABLE

migration. Thomas (1938), in her study of European migration,

found these factors to be the only consistent selective features.

Shryock (1964) explained the phenomenon in terms of the life

cycle; that is, propensity to migrate is higher at those ages

which correspond to different stages, or disruptions, in the life

cycle.

The sequential pattern of primary migration aad return migra-

tion dictates that, on the whole, return migrants will be the older

of the two migrant subgroups (Table V). The amount of differences

in the age structure of the two groups depends on several factors,

including the duration of residence in the North, age at the time

of original out-migration, and causes of the migration, among

other factors.

The return migrants and primary migrants which make up the

Black counterstream to the South exhibit striking age differences.

For example, more than 63% of the adult primary migrants were 15-24

years old, while only 28.4% of the return migrants were of compar-

able age. Moreover, 82.5% of the primary migrants were under

thirty-five years of age compared to only 61.6% of the return mi-

grants (including persons aged 0-14 years), and approximately 10%

of the return migrants compared to only 4.1% of the primary migrants

were sixty years old or over.

The distinctiveness of return migration and primary migration

is also revealed in the differences in which males and females

comprise the respective migration subgroups. The sex ratio of

the two components of the counterstream differs significantly.

For the primary migrants, the sex ratio is a high143.3, while

for the return migrants it is a low 92.6. Variations in the pro-

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

portions of males to females are also found at different age

levels. For example, the sex ratio of the primary migrants 15-24

years of age is 165 compared to 96 for the return migrants. The

sex ratio drops appreciably for both primary migrants and returnees

in the age cohort 25-34 to 136 and 83 respectively.

Interestingly, the sex ratios of the two migrant subgroups

tend toward convergence above age thirty-five, but the number of

migrants of that age is relatively small and therefore ratios for

the two subgroups are largely unaffected by the normalization

found among the older migrants.

Since the basic character of any group is strongly influenced

by its age and sex structure, differences found in this respect

suggest possible differences in many other ways. The primary mi-

grants and return migrants that make up the Black counterstream

exhibit significantly different age-sex structures. Primary mi-

grants are youthful with a disproportionately large number of males.

Return migrants, on the other hand, are not so youthful with a

disproportionately large number of females. These differences

suggest that the causal factors and motivational structures of

the two migrant groups are likely to be dissimilar. More research

is presently underway to test this hypothesis.

MARITAL STATUS

The distinctiveness of the migrant subgroups also reveals

itself in the different patterns of marital relationships charac-

terizing the primary migrants and return migrants. The major

difference between the two migrant subgroups lies in the signi-

ficantly larger proportion of the return migrants who are widowed,

10

-10-COPY MALE

divorced or separated (Table VI). Nearly 10% of the return migrants

were widowed compared to 2.5% of the primary migrants. This is

doubtless due in large part to the different age-sex structures

of the two groups as discussed above. Divorce rates were uneven

for the components of the counterstream with the return migrants

having almost twice the proportion of divorced as primary migrants,

7.5 and 4.5 per cent respectively. Both groups were found to have

high rates of separation, however, return migrants were much more

likely to be separated than primary migrants. Nearly 16% of the

return migrants were separated compared to 9% of the primary mi-

grants. Seventy-three per cent of the primary migrants were mar-

ried living with their spouses while only 57.6% of the return mi-

grants were of the same status. The proportions married with their

spouse absent were roughly the same for both return migrants and

primary migrants.

Some variations of these differences are found when marital

status is viewed by sex. For example, over 77% of the primary

migrant females were married with spouse present compared to a

low 50.6% of their return migrant counterparts.

These data suggest that primary migrants and return migrants

are not only different in terms of age and sex but also in terms

of the pattern of their marital relationships. Return migrants

tend to be characterized to a greater extent by disrupted marriages

in the form of separations, divorce and widowhood. It is likely

that the greater marital stability of the primary migrant is due

perhaps in large measure to the youthfulness of the population

and likewise their marriages. Nevertheless, whatever the reason,

in absolute terms, nearly half of the return migrants are without

ow COPY AVAILABLE

their mates while less than one - fourth of the primary migrants

can be so characterized.

The data presented for family size and household composition

demonstrate a further distinction between the two groups (Table

VII). Return migrants generally have larger family sizes than

primary migrants, which could be a function of the older age of

return migrants. More importantly, the household compositions

of the two migrant classes differ significantly in terms of non-

primary family members present in the household. Percentage-

wise, returnees have other relatives present in the house almost

twice as often as primary migrants, but other non-relatives only

a third as often as primary migrants. Considering the possibility

of kinship networks in the migration process (Scharzweller, et.al.,

1971), these figures could hold a great deal of significance for

an understanding of the process itself.

EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT

One of the more important implications of human migration

is the direct relationship it has with the location and relocation

of human resources. In fact, students of migration frequently

explain migration as a society's way of meeting the needs of ex-

panding and contracting labor markets in different geographical

locations. Others have expressed similar concerns about the fact

that people often make use of the educational resources of an

area only to leave after they have completed their education,

depriving the community that provided the resources of any return

on their investment. On the international scene, this phenomenon

-12-BEST COPY AVAILABLE

is often called the "brain drain." The same processes also occur

within nations resulting in educational gains and losses for the

sending and receiving communities depending on how the out-and in-

migrants compare with the populations.

One of the questions guiding this research was whether or not

the components of the Black counterstream were similar or dissimi-

lar with respect to their educational levels.

In general, return migrants and primary migrants tend to

exhibit significantly different levels of educational attainment

(Table VIII). For example, the percentage of primary migrants

with four or more years of college is more than twice that of

return migrants. At the low end, the percentage of return mi-

grants with seven or less years of regular schooling was almost

three times as large as that of primary migrants.

It has been argued as early as 1960 that a completed high

school education, or its equivalent in vocational school, had

become a cultural norm in the United States (Bogue, 1969). In

this study, it was found that the proportion completing at least

four years of high school was substantially different for the

two migrant subgroups. While more than 72% of the primary migrants

had at least four years of high school, only half the return mi-

grants had achieved a comparable level of education. However, it .

is perhaps noteworthy that approximately the same proportion of

the two migrant subgroups had some college.

Marked differences may also be found in the education patterns

for males and females among primary and return migrants. The

largest educational difference between male return migrants and

primary migrants was in the highest educational level, four or

-.13- BEST' COI'Y AVAILABLE

more years of college. Almost one-fifth of the primary migrants

had attained that level of schooling compared to only 7.2% of the

return migrants.

On the whole, there were greater differences among female

return migrants and primary migrants than among the males. Con-

trary to the educational pattern found among the male migrant

groups, the greatest differences were in the middle educational

levels rather than at the upper and lower extremes. For example,

the greatest difference among females was the high school level

where 54.1% of the primary migrants had four years of high school

compared to 33.0% of the return migrants.

Another interesting pattern reversal exists for males and

females in the two migrant subgroups when comparing those with

less than four years of high school to those with four years or

more of high school. A higher percentage of female primary mi-

grants had four years of high school or more than their male

counterparts. Among return migrants, the females had a smaller

percentage than their male counterparts. The differences in both

migrant groups, however, were not large.

OCCUPATION AND INCOME

As the educational differentials would lead us to suspect,

primary migrants and return migrants differ in their occupational

distribution. Table IX shows that 13.4% of the primary migrants

were professionals compared to 8.8% of the return migrants. The

modal occupation of the primary migrants was clerical and kindred

workers while the modal occupation for return migrants was service

-14-BEST COri AVAIL! LL

workers. If the occupations may be classified into "white collar"

(professional, manager, sales, clerical), "skilled blue collar"

(craftsmen, operatives, tranport operatives), and "unskilled blue

collar" (laborers, farmers, service workers, private household

workers, etc.) workers, it may be seen that almost twice as many

return migrants were unskilled blue collar workers as primary

migrants (Table X). Skilled blue collar occupations characterize

primary and return migrants in approximately the same proportions.

In both migrant subgroups females had a larger proportion of

white collar workers. Among return migrants women had a slightly

larger proportion of professionals whereas among the primary mi-

grants men had a substantially larger proportion of professionals.

In the skilled blue collar occupations, males were predominant for

both return migrants and primary migrants, as one would expect,

given the traditional masculine character of the occupations in-

volved. In the unskilled blue collar occupations women were

predominant for both return and primary migrants. This may be

accounted for by the disproportionately larger number of women

working as service workers and private household workers.

Income stands as an anomaly -n the context of other socio-

demographic characteristics of the two migrant subgroups (Table

XI). Educationally and occupationally, the primary migrants ex-

hibit higher status characteristics. Yet in the terms of income,

primary and return migrants show no major differences. At each

income level, the differences do not exceed seven per cent. For

example, 65.7% of the return migrants had incomes of $3,999 or

less compared to 66.0% of the primary migrants. The middle income

-15-BEST COPY AVAILABLE

range of $4,000 to $7,999 was found to be equally characteristic

of both migrant groups. Twenty-six per cent of the return migrants

compared to 19.8% of the primary migrants were in the middle in-

come range. Only 8.5% of the return and 8.4% of the primary migrants

had incomes of $8,000 or more.

One possible explanation for the evenness of incomes of the

two migrant subgroups is that the expected differences in income

that derive from educational and occupational differences are

countered by age difference, i.e., older, experienced blue collar

workers will often earn as much as a younger, inexperienced white

collar worker.

It should also be noted that a large proportion of the pri-

mary white collar workers were in the lower paying clerical and

sales occupations whereas a sizable proportion of the return

migrant skilled blue collar workers were in the relatively highly

paid operative and transport occupations.

Despite the similarity of the incomes of the migrant groups,

the other general characteristic is the uniformly low incomes.

Less than 5% of the primary migrants and less than 1% of the

returnees had incomes of $15,000 or more at the time of the census.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUDING REMARKS

The purpose of this paper has been to examine the utility

of differentiating between primary migrants and return migrants

in the Black counterstream migration to the South. With the 1970

Census Public Use Sample data on those migrants who were residing

in the North in 1965 and in the South in 1970, including identi-

fication of place of birth, several questions were raised about

-16-

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

the Black counterstream and its migrant subgroups, focusing on

the size of the counterstream, characteristics of the place of

residence, and characteristics of the migrants.

A counterstream migration of Black people to the South has

existed for many decades. The Census data indicates this counter-

stream has been steadily increasing from the first data available

in 1935-1940 up through the 1973 data from the Current Population

Survey. The majority of the Black counterstream is moving into

metropolitan areas and not to the rural areas where most Blacks

where located thirty years ago. Those moving into metropolitan

areas were more likely than the total Black population to reside

in areas outside the central city. It was also found that the

counterstream migration was selective for age, marital status,

education, and occupation. There was some variance between the

return migrants and primary migrants for most of the characteristics.

The highest selectivity was exhibited by the primary migrants.

They were more likely to have higher educational levels, higher

occupational levels, more likely to have a complete family, and

were younger than return migrants. One anomaly was in income

where primary and return migrants had generally similar levels.

By way of summary, the following points should be made:

1. There is a need for a less ambiguous definition of counter-

stream migration. Little attention has been paid to this

theoretically and empirically important component of the

migration picture.

2. The size of the Black counterstream migration to the South

has exceeded that of the dominant stream to the North.

3. Primary migration and return migration, components of the

-17-BM CM AVAILABLE

counterstream, are two distinctive processes, each

selective of different populations in terms of age

structure, sex ratio, marital status, education, and

occupation.

The present stage of theoretical development in migration

is insufficient to provide the necessary framework for a meaning-

ful interpretation of the processes of counterstream migration

aid the characteristics of the component migrant subgroups. It

is past time for new ground to be broken which will provide a

fertile framework within which our understanding of population

movement might be cultivated. But it is also possible that for

the ground to be broken new conceptual tools will be needed to

do the job.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

Fr, 'MOTES

2. A "return" migrant is defined as a person born in the South

who had a residence outside the South in 1965, and lived in

the South in 1970. It is clearly recognized that other defini-

tions might have more sociological implications of the return

migration of a person who was reared in the South, moved to

the North as an adult and back to the South would be very

different from the return migration of a person who moved

to the North in early childhood and back to the South at some

later date (perhaps still as a child). The movement as a

child would fall within the general category of "involuntary"

migration. Comparative data were obtained for the total

Black population from the various published Census of Popu-

lation and Housing reports. These are footnoted as appropriate.

Unfortunately the Census data do not allow for any other

definition than the one used. However, this hypothesis will

be tested in a field survey to be completed as a part of this

project.

3. The migrant records were compiled from the 1/100 State tapes

of the Public Use Sample tapes for all states in the South.

The Public Use Sample used a 1 in 5 (20%) sample, then sub-

divided into 15% and 5% samples. Different questionnaires

were used, but with some items repeated. The 5% sample was

selected by designating every fourth 20% sample unit as a

member of the 5% sample. See "Public Use Samples of Basic

Records from the 1970 Census: Description and Technical

Documentation." Variance by the variable under examination

in the N is a function of the nature of P.U.S. data. Data

for each variable does not read out for each case (person

file) due to blanks in the Census questionnaire, missing

variables, etc.

REFERENCES

Alvarez, Jose Hernandez.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

1967 "Return Migration to Puerto Rico," Population Mono-

graph Series, No. 1. Berkeley: University of California,

Bogue, Donald J.

1969 Principles of Demography. New York: John Wiley and

Sons, Inc.

Farley, Reynolds.

1970 Growth of the Black Population: A Study of Demographic

Trends. Chicago: Markham Publishing Co.

Goldscheider, Calvin.

1971 Population, Modernization and Social Structure. Boston:

Little, Brown, and Co.

Johnson, Daniel M.

1971 "Black Return Migration to a Southern Metropolitan

Community: Birmingham, Alabama." Unpublished Ph.D.

dissertation, University of Missouri-Columbia.

Lee, Everett S.

1969 "A Theory of Migration." Migration, edited by J.A.

Jackson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Shryock, Henry S.

1964 Population Mobility within the United States. Chicago:

Community and Family Center, University of Chicago.

Tadros, Helmi Ragheb.

1968 "Return Migration to Selected Communities in the Ozarks:

A Predominantly Rural, Economically Depressed Region."

Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Missouri-

Columbia.

Thomas, Dorothy Swaine.

1938 "Research Memorandum on Migration Differentials." New

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

Yorke Social Science Research Council, Bulletin 43.

U.S. Bureau of the Census.

1972 Public Use Samples of Basic Records from the 1970

Census: Description and Technical Documentation.

Washington, D.C.; Government Printing Office.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Social and Economic Statistics

Administration, Bureau of the Census.

1974 "Mobility of the Population of the United States, March

1970 to March 1973," Current Population Reports Series

P-20, No. 262, March.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

TABLE I

BLACK MIGRATION: STREAMS AND COUNTERSTREAMS

1940, 1960, 1970

Direction ofMigration 1935-40 1955-60 1965-70

South to North 119,637 301,005 284,186

South to West 93,971

North to South 32,781 98,206 126,103

West to South 35,600

North to Southas Per Cent ofSouth to North 27.4 32.6 44.4

Total Non-South toSouth as Per Centof South to Non-South 42.8

United States Census of1935-1940, Table 20.

United States Census of

United States Census of

Population 1940,

Population 1960,

Po ulation 19704

Internal Migration,

PC(2)-2D, Table 6.

PC(1)- Cl, Table 131.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

TABLE II

BLACK MIGRATION SOUTH TO NORTH AND NORTH TO SOUTH

1970-1973

Direction of Migration 1970-1973

South to Northeast 54,000South to North Central 63,000

Total 117,000

Northeast to South 124,000North Central to South 74,000

Total 198,000

South to West 49,000Total (All) 166,000

West to South 49,000Total (All) 247,000

North to South as % ofSouth to North 169.2

Non-South to South as %of South to Non-South 148.8

United States Department of Commerce, Population Characteristics,Series P-20, No. 256, Superintendent of Documents, U.S.Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., November1973, Table IV, page 11.

TABLE III

PLACE OF RESIDENCE BY RESIDENCE 5 YEARS AGO: 1970

Per Cent of all Migration

1965

Division of

Residence

PRIMARY MIGRANTS

East

West

South

Atlantic

South

South

TOTAL

Atlantic Atlantic

RETURN MIGRANTS

South

East

West

Atlantic

South

South

TOTAL

Atlantic Atlantic

NORTHEAST

(37.2)

(4.7)

(6.0)

(47.9)

(38.5)

(5.4)

(2.2)

(46.1)

Middle Atlantic

34.0

3.7

5.8

43.5

33.6

4.3

1.4

39.3

New England

3.1

1.0

0.2

4.4

4.9

1.1

0.8

6.8

NORTHCENTRAL

(17.5)

(11.3)

(8.9)

(37.7)

(9.9)

(12.9)

(8.6)

(31.4)

East North Central

14.4

10.2

7.1

31.7

7.6

9.9

6.3

23.8

West North Central

3.1

1.1

1.8

6.0

2.3

3.0

2.3

7.5

WEST AND PACIFIC

7.9

2.9

3.6

14.4

6.7

3.1

12.8

22.5

TOTAL

62.6

18.9

18.5

100.0

55.1

21.3

23.6

100.0

MIGRANTS

239

72

71

382

462

179

198

839

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

TABLE IV

PUBLIC USE SAMPLE

RESIDENCE: PRIMARY AND RETURN MIGRANTS

ResidencePRIMARY

Total Per Cent Total

RETURN

Per Cent.

URBAN/RURAL

Urban 352 86.3 626 74.6

Rural 56 13.7 213 25.4

TOTAL 408 100.0

.

839 100.0

METRO/NONMETRO

Metropolitan 252 72.0 475 64.5

Nonmetropolitan 98 28.0 261 35.5

350 100.0 736 100.0

CENTRAL/NONCENTRAL

Central City 165 45.3 344 48.9

Noncentral City 199 54.7 360 51.1

TOTAL 364 100.0 704 100.0

BEST CUrY

TABLE IVa

PROPORTION OF BLACKS LIVING IN URBANAND RURAL AREAS: 1890-1960

Per Cent

TOTALUNITED STATES

Urban Rural Urban

SOUTH

Rural

NORTHAND WEST

Urban Rural

1890 20 80 15 85 62 38

1900 23 77 17 83 70 30

1910 27 73 21 79 77 23

1920 34 66 25 75 84 16

1930 44 56 32 68 88 12

1940 49 51 37 64 89 11

1950-old def* 59 41 ...... _1950-new def 62 38 48 52 93 7

1960 73 27 58 42 95 5

*In 1950, the definition of urban residence was changed to in-clude as urban those individuals who lived in places of lessthan 2500 but within the suburbs of central cities.

Farley, Reynolds. Growth of the Black Population: A StudYof Demographic Trends. Chicago: Markham Publishing Co.,1970, p. 50.

TABLE V

DETAILED AGE DISTRIBUTION

Per Cent

AGE

PRIMARY MIGRANTS

MALE

FEMALE

TOTAL

MALE

RETURN MIGRANTS

FEMALE

TOTAL

15-19

26.1

21.6

24.3

9.3

10.7

10.0

20-24

39.2

31.7

36.2

19.8

17.1

18.4

25-29

14.7

16.8

15.5

16.4

17.4

16.9

30-34

5.3

6.0

5.6

14.7

17.4

16.1

35-39

5.3

7.8

6.3

11.0

7.8

9.3

40-44

2.4

4.2

3.2

7.6

6.6

7.1

45-49

2.0

1.8

1.9

4.9

3.4

4.1

50-54

0.8

3.0

1.7

4.4

4.3

4.3

55-59

1.2

1.2

1.2

3.2

5.7

4.5

60-64

0.8

1.8

1.2

2.7

2.5

2.6

65-69

-0.0

1.8

0.7

2.9

2.7

2.8

70 +

2.0

2.4

2.2

3.2

4.3

3.8

TOTAL

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

PERSONS

245

167

412

409

438

847

Males:

Age x Migrant Status:

x2= 96.83620; 11 d.f.; significant at .001 level.

Females:

Age x Migrant Status:

x2= 43.77853; 11 d.f.; significant at

.001 level.

TABLE VI

MARITAL STATUS BY SEX*

Per Cent

RETURN MIGRANTS

STATUS

PRIMARY MIGRANTS

MALE

FEMALE

TOTAL

MALE

FEMALE

TOTAL

Married. Spouse Present

69.5

76.0

72.7

Married, Spouse Absent

18.1

3.0

10.7

Widowed

1.0

5.0

2.9

Divorced

3.8

5.0

4.4

Separated

7.6

11.0

9.3

TOTAL

100.0

100.0

100.0

MIGRANTS

105

100

205

65.5

10.6

4.8

50.3

8.5

14.4

57.4

9.5

9.9

7.1

7.9

7.5

11.9

18.9

15.7

100.0

100.0

100.0

310

354

664

*excluding persons nevermarried

Males:

Marital Status x Migrant Status:

X2= 9.43994; 4 d.f.; non-significant.

Females:

Marital Status x Migrant Status:

X2= 21.78618; 4 d.f.; significant at

.001 level.

BEST CUrY AVAILAbLL

TABLE VII

HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION BY MIGRANT STATUSPer Cent

PRIMARY

MIGRANTS

RETURN

MIGRANTS

TOTAL

MIGRANTS

Head of Household 28.2 40.3 36.3

Wife of Head 17.3 18.7 18.3

Son/Daughter of Head 10.2 16.9 14.7

Other Relative of Head 6.9 13.0 11.0

Roomer or Boarder,Patient or inmatenot related 37.4 11.0 19.7

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0

MIGRANTS 422 859 1281

X2=44.7360 3 d.f. Significant at .001

TABLE VIII

YEARS OF SCHOOL COMPLETED BY SEX:

PERSONS 25 YEARS AND OLDER

Per Cent

Male

PRIM

AR

Y M

IGR

AN

TS

Female

Total

Male

RETURN MIGRANTS

Female

Total

ELEMENTARY

Less than 5 years

1.2

2.6

1.8

6.9

4.7

5.8

5-7 years

3.5

5.1

4.3

13.4

10.1

11.7

8 years

4.7

2.5

6.6

11.1

8.9

HIGH SCHOOL

1-3 years

18.8

20.5

19.6

20.0

25.9

23.1

4 years

38.8

52.6

45.4

34.5

32.6

33.5

COLLEGE

1-3 years

12.9

10.3

11.7

11.4

8.9

10.1

4 years or more

20.0

9.0

14.7

7.2

6.6

6.9

TOTAL

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

PERSONS

85

78

163

290

316

606

Males:

Years of School Completed x

cant at .01 level.

Females:

Years of School Completed

ficant at .01 level.

Migrant Status:

X2=21.07140; 6 d.f.; signifi-

x Migrant Status:

X2=19.22021; 6 d.f.; signi-

TABLE IX

OCCUPATION BY SEX

Per Cent

PRIMARY MIGRANTS

OCCUPATION

Male

Female

Total

Male

RETURN MIGRANTS

Female

Total

Professional, Tech.

17.5

9.8

13.1

7.6

10.3

9.0

Managers/Admin.

4.9

0.8

2.5

4.8

0.6

2.5

Sales Workers

1.9

6.8

4.7

1.9

4.2

3.1

Clerical Workers

16.5

42.1

31.0

8.3

17.5

13.2

Craftsmen

13.6

1.5

6.8

14.6

1.1

7.4

Operatives

18.4

8.3

12.7

19.4

16.9

18.0

Transport Operatives

2.9

1.3

6.0

0.8

3.3

Laborers

6.8

3.0

17.5

1.9

9.2

Farmers and Managers

0.3

0.3

0.3

Farm Laborers

1.9

0.8

2.9

1.1

1.9

Service Workers

14.6

24.1

19.9

16.5

30.6

24.0

Private Household

1.0

6.8

4.2

0.3

14.7

8.0

TOTAL

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

103

133

236

315

360

675

Males:

Occupation x Migrant Status:

X2= 22.96518; 12 d.f.; significant at .05 level

Females:

Occupation x Migrant Status:

X2=44.54604; 12 d.f.; significant at

.001 level.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

TABLE X

PUBLIC USE SAMPLE

BROAD OCCUPATIONAL DISTRIBUTIONSPer Cent

PRIMARYMIGRANTS

RETURNMIGRANTS

TOTALMIGRANTS

White Collar 51.7 27.9 34.0

Blue Collar 23.7 37.9 34.3

Farm 0.9 2.2 1.9

Service 23.7 32.0 29.9

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0

PERSONS 232 681 913

X2=44.7360 3 d.f. Significant at .001 level

TABLE XI

PERSONS INCOME BY SEX

Per Cent

Male

PRIMARY MIGRANTS

Female

TOTAL

Male

RETURN MIGRANTS

Female

TOTAL

Under $1,000

15.5

32.8

21.9

16.7

31.9

23.9

$1,000-1,999

20.3

14.8

18.2

12.1

23.7

17.6

$2,000-2,999

16.9

10.7

14.6

10.0

10.6

10.3

$3,000-3,999

10.1

12.3

10.9

13.2

14.3

13.7

$4,000-4,999

7.2

9.8

8.2

10.5

6.7

8.7

$5,000-5,999

9.7

6.6

8.5

11.9

2.1

7.3

$6,000-6,999

5.3

6.6

5.8

7.8

5.2

6.6

$7,000-7,999

2.9

4.1

3.3

5.1

1.5

3.4

$8,000-9,999

3.9

0.8

2.7

8.1

3.3

5.9

$10,000-14,999

2.9

1.6

2.4

3.8

0.3

2.1

$15,000-24,999

3.4

2.1

0.8

0.3

0.6

$25,000 +

1.9

1.2

TOTAL

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

PERSONS

207

122

329

371

329

700

70 and over

65 to 69

60 to 64

55 to 59

50 to 54

45 to 49

40 to 44

35 to 39

30 to 34

25 to 29

20 to 24

15 to 19

70 and over

65 to 69

60 to 64

55 to 59

50 to 54

45 to 49

40 to 44

35 to 39

30 to 34

25 to 29

20 to 24

15 to 19

k,

1111

1160

10, /

-0:f

7'

seo1

a

ggir

:T2*

>`;

MALE

FEMALE

RETURN MIGRANTS

PRIMARY MIGRANTS

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

50

510

15

20

25

30

35

40

Per Cent

Figure 1.

AGE-SEX DISTRIBUTION:

Primary and Return Migrants

MARRIED *

SEPARATED

WIDOWED

DIVORCED

Male

RETURN

Male

PRIMARY

Female

10

20

30

40

Per Cent

50

60

70

80

90

Figure 2.

MARITAL STATUS BY SEX for Return and Primary Migrants

*Includes Married with Spouse Present and Married with Spouse Absent.

Married with

Spouse Absent designated by white area

** Less than One Per Cent

MARRIED

C..:

ALI; OTHER *

Male

RETURN MIGRANTS

Female

MalePRIMARY

Female

MIGRANTS

TOTAL RETURNMIGRANTS

TOTAL PRIMARY

MICRANTS

010

20

30

40

Per Cent

50

60

70

80

Figure 2a.

MARITAL STATUS BY SEX for Return and Primary Migrants

* Includes:

Separated, Divorced andWidowed Categories

90

MARRI ED

C.'

ALL OTHER *

Male

RETURN MIGRANTS

Female

MalePRIMARY

Female

MIGRANTS

TOTAL RETURNMIGRANTS

TOTAL PRIMARY

MIGRANTS

4.44#############*######################################

010

20

30

40

Per Cent

50

60

70

80

90

Figure 2a.

MARITAL STATUS BY SEX for Return and Primary Migrants

* Includes:

Separated, Divorced and Widowed Categories

2z rn

Elementary:Less than5 years

5 to 7 years

8 years

High School:

1 to 3 years

4 years

College:

1 to 3 years

4 years ormore

Male

Female

Male

Female

RETURN MIGRANTS

PRIMARY MIGRANTSBEST COPY AVAILABLE

1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55

Per Cent

Figure 3. EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT BY SEX for Return and Primary

f')()a:JO

UNSKILLED

WORKERS

BLUE COLLAR

WORKERS

WHITE COLLAR

WORKERS

OW

WW

W.0

,01P

W41

U0

,

4,MaleRETURN MIGRANTS

Female

X%

: :::

:" *

:e:*

:r %

l %e.

%ti

4N7474747747474747474747147474747474747474747477474747,74747474747474747A7474494494V

--.4.W4.W441..44W4'46---'-4:4-4,W4-'-4WW474'4 4

.-:4. 46'4

44 4

4 4 4

St.

:WA

: 4,..

:51

1.65

*:.P

e lin

:"":

'V

-.4

:-.

..

_ _

"4:?

....4

:701

$ee.

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I

in=

d41

,A

rO

e(P

'41

,'4ir

ir4.

41 4

,40

41It

oo

40Ir

lo0,

ir

ir

r4.

04.

04r 411.

4.

10 ir

it

OW

'.

.'" e

:e.{

`A

. 're

Aft

=11

00"-

.': i'

iii w

MalePRIMARY

1Female

MIGRANTS

TOTAL RETURN MIGRANTS

TOTAL PRIMARY MIGRANTS

.#7

05

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Per Cent

45

50

Figure 4. OCOMMIONAL STATUS:

Primary and Return Migrants

55

60

65

Private HouseholdWorkers

Service Workersexcept PrivateHousehold Workers

Farm Laborers andFarm Foremen

Farmers and FarmManagers

Laborers, ExceptFarm

Transport EquiPmghtOperatives

Operatives, ExceptTransport

Craftsmen, Foremen,and Kindred Workers

Clerical and KindredWorkers

Sales Workers

Managers and Admin-istrators, ExceptFarm

Professional, Tech-nical, and KindredWorkers

131

4

TOTAL RETURN MIGRANTS

TOTAL PRIMARY MIGRANTS

4 .4k 4 4

3

V....... .

tit

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Per Cent

Figure 5. EMPLOYMENT BY OCCUPATION for Return and Primary

*Less than One Per Cent

Less than$1000 to$1999

$2000 to$3999

$4000 to$5999

$6000 to$7999

$8000 to$14999

$15000 ormore

BEST COPY WILMA,

MaleRETURN

Female

Male

FemalePRIMARY

10 20 30 40 50 60

Per Cent

Figure 6. 1969 INCOME BY SEX for Return and Primary Migrants

*Less than One Per Cent '.it .a.

MIGRANT,

MIGRANT.